How ISPs will do “six strikes”: Throttled speeds, blocked sites

Users will get several warnings before things start to break.

The "six strikes" anti-piracy program is on its way, for real. Jill Lesser, head of the Center for Copyright Information—the enforcement agency in charge of the system—confirmed that the system is coming this year in a September interview with Ars. Speaking at a New York Internet conference, representatives of two of the biggest ISPs, Verizon and Time Warner, have finally described how their systems will work.

Despite the "six strikes" moniker, both Verizon and Time Warner talked about systems that work in three essential phases. First comes the "notice" phase, which simply involves letting users know they've been tracked on copyright-infringing sites. Verizon customers, for example, will send notifications to primary account holders via both e-mail and telephone. "We send a notice to the customer, saying there's been an allegation [of] illegal activity with copyrighted files," said Verizon VP Link Hoewing.

Next is the "acknowledgement" phase. This is when the customer will have to actually acknowledge having received those notices. Hoewing said his company's customers will experience this as a pop-up window. The idea here is to make extra sure they're getting to the right people. In a house or apartment with a shared Internet connection, he noted, five people may be using the same account, with just one person—likely not the account holder—engaged in copyright infringement.

Finally, there's the "mitigation" phase. This is when users who have traded copyrighted files are actually punished, and Time Warner and Verizon take different tacks here. Verizon users will have their speeds throttled for between two and three days, said Hoewing. And even then, they'll have the right to appeal the case, which will be handled by an independent arbitration firm, he said. (The user will have to pay a $35 filing fee for the appeal.) Before the speed reduction begins, subscribers will be given a 14-day advance notice.

Time Warner users will see popular websites blocked. "We're constructing a soft landing area, where the customer is restricted in the type of browsing that they can do," said Time Warner VP Fernando Laguarda. "If they appeal, all those measures are suspended pending the appeal."

The target of "six strikes" is the casual copyright infringer, not dedicated pirates. At one point, moderator Declan McCullagh of CNET asked how the content owners and ISPs would deal with customers who might use a system like TOR to hide their identity. "Will this just push determined pirates into a darker area of the Internet?" he asked. "Will you just catch the loser ones, who aren't that smart?"

CCI head Jill Lesser responded that the goal isn't to stop "serial pirates" trying to avoid IP laws. Rather, it's to educate "the vast majority of the people for whom trading in copyrighted material has become a social norm, over many years."

Both the content company participants and the ISPs emphasized that "education" is the goal, rather than lawsuits. "This is not about suing users at all," said Ron Wheeler, a senior VP at Fox Broadcasting who was on the panel. "This system is not designed to produce lawsuits—it's designed to produce education."

Other ISPs may be participating soon. A Cox spokesperson told TorrentFreak, which first reported on the conference, that it was invited to participate but decided not to, for now.

Next is the "acknowledgement" phase. This is when the customer will have to actually acknowledge having received those notices. Hoewing said his company's customers will experience this as a pop-up window. The idea here is to make extra sure they're getting to the right people. In a house or apartment with a shared Internet connection, he noted, five people may be using the same account, with just one person—likely not the account holder—engaged in copyright infringement.

How will they trigger a popup window? Will they inject data into the user's data stream? Will a popup blocker block it?

Oh boy- pirates will be able to get around this, and the only people who will be frightened by it are people who do barely any infringing at all.

When Time Warner has its way, your grandma will be too afraid to download Angry Birds on her iPad, and yet Game of Thrones will still propagate through mirrored servers like fornicating rabbits in the springtime.

Why should I have to pay $35 to educate them that IP addresses do not equal people, that courts have ruled that I'm not obligated to secure my wifi, and that even if I tried, it cannot be secured, since like every other Linksys router sold in the last 5 years, it has WPS vulnerability that can easily be used to crack it anyway.

I find the fact that they know it's a social norm worrying - it means that they actually thought about it and concluded that "no it's not us, everyone else is wrong", which in my opinion is extremely presumptuous.Also, cute how they're still using their favourite euphemism: "education".

I would like some more information on this. Visiting a page that has copyright infringements is now a "notice?" Youtube often has copyright infringements, as does twitter, do those count? What about torrent sites that also host legal torrents, are those marked as infringing?

krispharper, I am not sure about Verizon, but Time Warner's method uses a cable modem/DNS based solution. It basically redirects all http traffic to an acknowledgement page. Once you click the button or link, it removes the DNS redirection.

CCI head Jill Lesser responded that the goal isn't to stop "serial pirates" trying to avoid IP laws. Rather, it's to educate "the vast majority of the people for whom trading in copyrighted material has become a social norm, over many years."

A startling admission that should really give the public an idea of the motives here. Why on earth WOULDN'T you go after the "serial pirates", the ones that are pirating all the goods and essentially dealing the pirated material? It seems to me that anyone serious about doing anything about piracy would be trying to answer the tough questions about the underlying cause of piracy, as well as assessing all aspects of the situation. Instead, this policy seems to be going for easy wins by warning soccer moms that the Justin Bieber tune they downloaded was a pirated copy.

Great. Bravo, idiots. We'll see your next joke of an idea in a year or so when this initiative goes belly up because it didn't do shit.

Their goal is education, yet a significant part of their plan is an appeals process?

What happens after the sixth strike? The ISP (and presumably CCI) has a history of warnings they've issued the user, at least some of which require the user to acknowledge. A history that shows the user isn't deterred by temporary throttling or otherwise reduced services. Such documents would make suing the user infinitely easier. Are we to believe that's not going to happen?

I would just like to point out that Charter has declined to participate in this. If Charter is available in your area now would be a good time to consider switching. If you are already a Charter customer give them a ring and let them know they made the right choice.

I do not work for Charter, just a Charter customer that is very pleased with their decision.

This is when the customer will have to actually acknowledge having received those notices. Hoewing said his company's customers will experience this as a pop-up window.

How exactly will this be implemented? Some sort of JavaScript redirect?

I'd assume through DNS servers, given most people use whatever DHCP gives them. I'm assuming that the 'disconnect' phase will never come, or this program gets suspended by all participants. This seems more like a money-grab, given how TW stops once the money lands, and Verizon simply lets the users wait it out if they don't appeal.

I'm guessing this is going to be used against heavy users in addition to people who are doing things that remotely look like piracy. Until extortion fees are paid by companies like Netflix so that they get white-listed for heavy users.

I'm starting to feel tempted to pay the same money for half the bandwidth on DSL.

I would just like to point out that Charter has declined to participate in this. If Charter is available in your area now would be a good time to consider switching. If you are already a Charter customer give them a ring and let them know they made the right choice.

I do not work for Charter, just a Charter customer that is very pleased with their decision.

Nice for those who live somewhere where the concept of "Switching" is available, most of us live places where the cable companies basically have a monopoly over Internet.

I would just like to point out that Charter has declined to participate in this. If Charter is available in your area now would be a good time to consider switching. If you are already a Charter customer give them a ring and let them know they made the right choice.

I do not work for Charter, just a Charter customer that is very pleased with their decision.

It is nice to see a few companies refusing to go along with it. I've been considering switching from Cox to Verizon, which are the only 2 options in my area. I may be putting that decision on hold...

I would like some more information on this. Visiting a page that has copyright infringements is now a "notice?" Youtube often has copyright infringements, as does twitter, do those count? What about torrent sites that also host legal torrents, are those marked as infringing?

Edit: Typos!

Yeah- that sentance stuck out for me too. Seems like a slippery slope that could lead to only being able to visit ISP approved/owned sites.

meanwhile, other countries are ruling that these sorts of things are illegal.

Just wait till this becomes an antitrust suit the second they start it, as a violation of common carrier among other discrimination issues. It will.

I know it's bad form to cite Wikipedia, but ISPs are not considered common carriers, nor have they ever been. It's the only way they're able to get away with so much every year, and come out with 'suggestions' from the FCC after a few.

After pissing off the ISP customers, they will ask their tech friend how to keep this from happening again. Then the tech friend will teach them whatever easy circumvention/obfuscation tricks and everyone continues on with their social norms that don't give property values to imaginary objects.

<quote>... it's to educate "the vast majority of the people for whom trading in copyrighted material has become a social norm, over many years".</quote>

Isn't law supposed to reflect social norms? Just sayin...

It's more of a throwback to Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia where the populace at large was deemed guilty for the "sins" of a few. Both would selectively punish population areas as a demonstration to show that they would not put up with resistance.

meanwhile, other countries are ruling that these sorts of things are illegal.

Just wait till this becomes an antitrust suit the second they start it, as a violation of common carrier among other discrimination issues. It will.

I know it's bad form to cite Wikipedia, but ISPs are not considered common carriers, nor have they ever been. It's the only way they're able to get away with so much every year, and come out with 'suggestions' from the FCC after a few.

Which if funny, because common use of the internet was born on common carrier systems (dial-up), which proved (several times, such as fax machines) that the common carrier rules worked great for promoting progress.

CCI head Jill Lesser responded that the goal isn't to stop "serial pirates" trying to avoid IP laws. Rather, it's to educate "the vast majority of the people for whom trading in copyrighted material has become a social norm, over many years."

A startling admission that should really give the public an idea of the motives here. Why on earth WOULDN'T you go after the "serial pirates", the ones that are pirating all the goods and essentially dealing the pirated material? It seems to me that anyone serious about doing anything about piracy would be trying to answer the tough questions about the underlying cause of piracy, as well as assessing all aspects of the situation. Instead, this policy seems to be going for easy wins by warning soccer moms that the Justin Bieber tune they downloaded was a pirated copy.

Great. Bravo, idiots. We'll see your next joke of an idea in a year or so when this initiative goes belly up because it didn't do shit.

It's because the "serial pirates" most likely A: Don't have enough $ to purchase legal downloads and B: Won't care, and have the abilities to mitigate any protection the DoJ or Time Warner/Verizon sets up.

Going after the casuals makes perfect sense as per capita, they have much more $, and are much more impressionable. (I.E. willing to settle when a lawsuit hits them)

krispharper, I am not sure about Verizon, but Time Warner's method uses a cable modem/DNS based solution. It basically redirects all http traffic to an acknowledgement page. Once you click the button or link, it removes the DNS redirection.

So what happens if I do not use their DNS? I instead use openDNS. Will that hijack my DNS and still re-route me?

Why should I have to pay $35 to educate them that IP addresses do not equal people, that courts have ruled that I'm not obligated to secure my wifi, and that even if I tried, it cannot be secured, since like every other Linksys router sold in the last 5 years, it has WPS vulnerability that can easily be used to crack it anyway.

Well your internet service is not a human right by any means. They will simply cancel you. There is no law saying that they have to service you.

Glad I'm not with these two companies and feel bad for anyone who does not have a choice to jump ship. There needs to be a campaign against this garbage - basically a threat of boycotting the offending companies (that should be all the "mediation" they need). I'm assuming this comes with a change of terms notification. This is your way out of a long-term contract with them.

1. The we are only after the sheeple is telling.2. Acknowledgement = admission of guilt.3. Mediation fee for their errors (and there will be errors- google Michele Obama take down) is unconscionably. Have the RIAA/MPAA/Writers guild front the money for the mediation.4. Mediation has an over 95% "success rate" for corporations5. Even if this were a workable solution a list of current copyright infringement websites needs to be posted before even a notification begins so that a customer can block those sites in advance. (see youtube example above).but #5 is not only for the customers, it's for those that are distributing content. If an artist or label is giving out free downloads/mp3s and then their fans get tagged as infringers.. there is real damage to that artist-fan relationship.

If an artist does release content as free and is flagged as infringing I hope they sue for libel.